Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[bobevenson]

Bill O'Reilly's downfall? Please, how can making millions of dollars for not working be considered a downfall?

[Skip]

A question in return, if I may pose one.

thedoc - It seems that many atheists conflate "atheist dogma" with "individual actions", thinking that if one atheist is found to be acting in a reasonable and kind way, then all atheists must feel the same way.

Immanuel Can --- what Orwell called "groupthink."
The assumption is that all bad things done by "religions" are the equal blame of all, and any good done by any Atheist is the common virtue of all.

Regarding these, and similar blatantly obvious misrepresentations - Is your target audience of such low intelligence that you don't even bother to disguise the dishonesty of such statements? For example, you yourself introduce the notion of an "atheist dogma" - which exists nowhere and to which nobody subscribes - and then you attribute assumptions to me and other people who have one single known trait in common with me - that is, refusal to buy your line of woo - about the content of that same fictitious dogma - in direct negation of actual statements by actual atheists, fore and aft.

Meanwhile, IC, holds forth on how we atheists are entirely without a moral compass, anarchic, each out for himself - as a kind of undifferentiated hive mind, identical in thought and intent. Does he not expect anyone to notice a contradiction?

"It is a puzzlement." *

(*King Mongkut)

[thedoc]

A question in return, if I may pose one.

Meanwhile, IC, holds forth on how we atheists are entirely without a moral compass, anarchic, each out for himself - as a kind of undifferentiated hive mind, identical in thought and intent. Does he not expect anyone to notice a contradiction?

(*King Mongkut)

I didn't read it that way, IC is saying that atheism provides no moral compass for the atheist, there are certainly many atheists who behave morally, but their behavior is not based on their atheism.

[thedoc]

Regarding these, and similar blatantly obvious misrepresentations - Is your target audience of such low intelligence that you don't even bother to disguise the dishonesty of such statements? For example, you yourself introduce the notion of an "atheist dogma" - which exists nowhere and to which nobody subscribes - and then you attribute assumptions to me and other people who have one single known trait in common with me - that is, refusal to buy your line of woo - about the content of that same fictitious dogma - in direct negation of actual statements by actual atheists, fore and aft.

Apparently you and I have been in contact with different groups of atheists, I am reporting, and basing my statements on what I have observed, but apparently you have observed different atheists.

As far as "no-one subscribing to atheist dogma" IC has described it quite nicely, and one other person who agrees with my statement is enough to disprove your claim. I was making a statement about some atheists in general and was in no way trying to attribute anything to you in particular, if those claim do not apply to you, so be it. I will admit that I am only familiar with a small group of atheists, if you know every one, good for you, though it is possible that some of those atheists are lying to either you or me.

[Skip]

I am reporting, and basing my statements on what I have observed,

Presumably elsewhere. Yet you are responding with these observations to the atheists posting here, without addressing what they report about themselves.

but apparently you have observed different atheists.

I do not observe atheists. I meet people, and in most cases, never ask their religious affiliation, or lack of.

As far as "no-one subscribing to atheist dogma" IC has described it quite nicely, and one other person who agrees with my statement is enough to disprove your claim.

You mean IC subscribes to an atheist dogma? I'm surprised. Well, he is certainly able to describe it.

No gods.
No allowing that anyone else has reason to believe in gods.
All "religions" will be treated as the same. (All will be kept in fuzzy focus only.)
No part of the achievements of any "religion" will count. Every sin committed by any will be attributed to all.
No Atheist is to be required to justify his/her disbelief in any way.

That's pretty much the dogma.

So that's what IC really believes?
Huh. Explains a lot.

I was making a statement about some atheists in general

No-one in particular? No quotes, claims, text, reference? Then how does it relate to the present discussion?

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't read it that way, IC is saying that atheism provides no moral compass for the atheist, there are certainly many atheists who behave morally, but their behavior is not based on their atheism.

You've got it.

Skip "skipped" over it, and missed the point. But you're dead on.

[Skip]

I didn't read it that way, IC is saying that atheism provides no moral compass for the atheist, there are certainly many atheists who behave morally, but their behavior is not based on their atheism.

You've got it.

Skip "skipped" over it, and missed the point. But you're dead on.

He's dead on, certainly. I didn't point out the irrelevancy of eithr remark about the moral compass,
since I had already explained how any religion can encompass a range of moralities
(the bible being especially rich in cherry harvests for every taste, style and proclivity)
for any believer to turn into law, canon or dogma - and to change when public support wanes and power declines;
that no religion compels a bad person to behave well or a good person to behave badly;
nor does lack of religion predispose an unbeliever to any particular type of behaviour.
That, in fact, belief and unbelief do not determine morality ...
shouldn't need any more reiterations.

.... though one's personal moral sense might well turn one toward or away from existing belief-systems,
but that's another discussion.

[Greta]

People who do not have a belief of which they are aware, such as Atheists, say, may behave well...but there's not obligation for them to do so.

Really? Do goodwill, empathy, compassion, friendliness, kindness not count here?

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

No, they always matter...but commitment to them is only haphazard and local, unless it can be shown that there is a rational and necessary basis for practicing them. There are nice Atheists...I have a lot of friends who don't agree with my Theism, and they're fine people. But not one of them -- not a single one, nor anyone here -- can explain to me why any Atheist MUST be good. Atheism has no such explanation.

Theism has no explanation either. Only edicts. There's many secular edicts too.

Why do you assume that all non believers are not philosophically inclined?

Show me where I said that.

I did not. And I do not.

You routinely speak as though atheists are mindless cattle - how can you not acknowledge this? Here is the statement that prompted my question:

People who are good for reasons of belief know WHY they are obliged to be good.

To claim that atheists and agnostics do not consciously adopt moral codes is a claim that they are not philosophical, that they do not lead examined lives and are just mindless fools blindly fumbling through life. In truth, they have done the work of trying to understand as opposed to following dogmas that are out-of-date, that wrongly treat reality as unchanging and wrongly assume that is (and does) good in one time and place will be good in other times and places.

To expect atheism to provide a moral compass is illogical - a very superficial equivalence. Is anyone's atheism towards Zeus a source of morality for them? Atheism is not a belief or a code - it's simply a disregard of mythological beliefs.

The point is that if you are seeking the roots of morality, it doesn't come from culture's appendages, it comes from the culture itself - ideas and observations shared by ancestors going back thousands of years. These ideas become ingrained, codified in law, verified and disproved by experiment and observation, and often through social pressure.

Secular morality is not as rigid as those of theists and thus avoids the pitfall of repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Ancestral knowledge passed on is essential to our survival and thrival, but if we unquestioningly follow the ancients' wisdom we are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Speaking of mistakes, when considering war, most parliaments in the west are dominated by Christian boys' networks, especially in the US, the most warmongering nation on Earth today. GWB stated that God told him to invade Iraq, yet you would have no doubt count that as a secular war. It's no so clear cut.

Buddhists and Hindus...

Take a look around the world. How do you see their countries faring? Any ideas why?

Overpopulation. Also, being in the tropics these countries are the most vulnerable to climate change (mostly caused by Christian nations), with recent extreme weather events affecting them.

So yes, the violent, warlike Abrahamic tribes have beaten down and destroyed all opposition for two thousand years and it looks as though they will continue their dominance. I'm not sure that's much to be proud of.

[Immanuel Can]

...no religion compels a bad person to behave well or a good person to behave badly;
nor does lack of religion predispose an unbeliever to any particular type of behaviour.

You've missed it again. It's not about "compelling"; it's about rationally legitimizing. No morality can be legitimized from Atheism.

I've repeatedly offered the opportunity to all attendant Atheists to give me one moral precept -- just one -- that follows as a duty from Atheism. I have not even been offered one, and not by anyone.

In contrast, it's extremely easy to understand the legitimation of morality from a Theistic perspective. You may not like it, but at least there's a rational legitimation for particular moral precepts. Atheism's got none at all.

(Note: I did not say Atheists are all bad people. Some are, some aren't. But every one of them is either good or bad without moral legitimation. Those that are as ostensibly good as anyone have no reason but pragmatics or disposition to back it; and those that are evil are not made "bad" by any Atheist rationale even if they choose to be the most horrid people.)

[Immanuel Can]

Theism has no explanation either.

Sure it does. Commandments are only indicators of the nature of God Himself. "The Good" is always grounded in the character of God.

Now, you may not happen to believe that yourself: fine. But it's not true to say that people who do believe it have a rational grounding for their ethics. They do.

Why do you assume that all non believers are not philosophically inclined?

Show me where I said that.

I did not. And I do not.

Here is the statement that prompted my question:

People who are good for reasons of belief know WHY they are obliged to be good.

To claim that atheists and agnostics do not consciously adopt moral codes...

You'll note that I did not say that. Au contraire, I said that Atheist can choose to act as good. But Atheism has zero logical rationale for those moral precepts they may follow. A person can be a Stalin, and still be as "good" an Atheist as an Atheist who chooses to act like a saint.

I'm making no claim about what Atheistic people may choose or not choose to do. I'm making a claim about Atheism, their particular ideology.

...is a claim that they are not philosophical, that they do not lead examined lives and are just mindless fools blindly fumbling through life.

None of which you'll find I said. You've misread again.

To expect atheism to provide a moral compass is illogical...

Now you've got it! It's an empty vessel...it's a moral eunuch. It's got nothing.

Buddhists and Hindus...
Take a look around the world. How do you see their countries faring? Any ideas why?

Overpopulation. Also, being in the tropics these countries are the most vulnerable to climate change (mostly caused by Christian nations), with recent extreme weather events affecting them.

One word...seriously? THAT'S what you think? Really?

[Skip]

No morality can be legitimized from Atheism.

So? I see you're still incorrectly capitalizing.

I've repeatedly offered the opportunity to all attendant Atheists to give me one moral precept -- just one -- that follows as a duty from Atheism.

So you have. And it continues to be a ludicrous demand, long after it lost its amusement value.

I have not even been offered one, and not by anyone.

Here, have a cookie.

There is no ordered system of atheism; no canon, no moral precepts; no dogma. It imposes no duties or obligations.
There are no services, statutory holidays, observances, rituals, sacrifices or edifices.
Not even a scraggly sacred hedgerow. "There is no there, there."*
None. Nothing. Nada. It is a belief-blackout. A negative. The absence of religion.
Are you beginning to get a glimmer of an inkling yet?

In contrast, it's extremely easy to understand the legitimation of morality from a Theistic perspective. You may not like it, but at least there's a rational legitimation for particular moral precepts.

Oh yes. It can legitimize and validate any practice at all, however benign or horrible, under the auspices of heaven-mandated morality.
At some time or other, some religion or other has mandated everything - and prohibited everything.
People who are not ruled by the mouthpieces of gods don't receive their moral precepts ready-made.
They have to figure out, rationally or emotionally or through some combination of the two, how to coexist and legitimize their own rules.
Like grownups.

Atheism's got none at all.

Good morning!
The 'ism', incidentally, is from theism: a-theism, not athe-ism. But I may upgrade to anti-theism.

(*Gertrude Sein)

[Immanuel Can]

No morality can be legitimized from Atheism.

So? I see you're still incorrectly capitalizing.

Not incorrectly. Not if you believe in Atheism. Do you?

I know, I know...you're going to say "It's pure negation." Like this...

"There is no there, there."*
None. Nothing. Nada. It is a belief-blackout. A negative. The absence of religion.

Except if it is, then it has no importance for anyone but you, since you are not claiming to know anything. Essentially, you are saying, "Skip doesn't want to believe in God." Yes, fine. But so what? What's the point of arguing? And yet, here you are, arguing again.

But if you're arguing and suggesting that it's "wrong" for people to be Theists, which clearly you are doing, then you owe us your evidence for your claim to know that there is no God.

And not only have you claimed to know that, but you've also three times claimed to know that nobody can know anything about God. So now you're making grand claims about what kinds of experience or contact with the Supreme Being other people are allowed to have, according to you. You say they couldn't possibly have an authentic knowledge of the existence of God. But how would you ever know that yourself?

Ante up, then. What's your evidence? Because if you're just making a personal, negative claim, then nobody would have reason to care. "Skip doesn't want to believe in God." So what? That's all on Skip. The next guy along may well feel differently. If Skip has no opinion on the next guy along, then fine. Okay, Skip. We heard you already.

Without your extra assumption that knowing God is impossible, you cannot intelligently or rationally offer your view to anyone. But if you are saying that to believe in Theism is wrong for others, you owe us your evidence or rationale.

So again, what has led you to this astoundingly important revelation of the knowledge of what all other people can or cannot know?

[uwot]

Theism has no explanation either.

Sure it does. Commandments are only indicators of the nature of God Himself. "The Good" is always grounded in the character of God.

Even when god commands or condones genocide, execution for witchcraft, slavery and all the other choice behaviours advocated in the bible.

Now, you may not happen to believe that yourself: fine. But it's not true to say that people who do believe it have a rational grounding for their ethics. They do.

Mr Can, as a divine command theorist, your "rational grounding" for ethics is fear of punishment. That is how you attempt to control unruly children and criminals; yours is not an ethical system; it is a legal system.

[Skip]

Not incorrectly. Not if you believe in Atheism. Do you?

Of course I don't. Evidently, you do.

Essentially, you are saying, "Skip doesn't want to believe in God." Yes, fine. But so what?

And also: Emmanuel Can is lying about what Skip thinks. Skip does not enjoy being lied about.
And also: Emmanuel Can is attempting, through propaganda and unscrupulous advertising, misdirection, character assassination, deceit and collusion, to inflict a degrading, dysfunctional, corrosive and crazy-making belief system on the continent in which Skip lives. Skip does not like degrading, crazy-making belief-systems, or living in a nation of mad sheep.
And also: Emmanuel Can is a disingenuous shill, and Skip has no use for those.

What's the point of arguing?

None whatever. It does fill in time between the last snack and the next one.

But if you're arguing and suggesting that it's "wrong" for people to be Theists, which clearly you are doing,

Show me where I said that, he ranted; quoteitsquoteitquoteitimstillwaiting, he screamed.

then you owe us your evidence for your claim to know that there is no God.

I don't claim anything. I don't owe you anything. I simply don't buy your god, your propaganda or your legitimation of a questionable morality.

And not only have you claimed to know that, but you've also three times claimed to know that nobody can know anything about God.
So now you're making grand claims about what kinds of experience or contact with the Supreme Being other people are allowed to have, according to you. You say they couldn't possibly have an authentic knowledge of the existence of God. But how would you ever know that yourself?

Shock, indeed. Do you ever read your own bullshit?
I do not know this man. I do not know him. Never seen 'im before, okay? Hark, is that a cock crowing?

Because if you're just making a personal, negative claim,

Precisely what I said it was. And not any of the other ungawa.
While you keep making up script for me, the only thing I've called you is a dishonest debater,
which is the only matter of relevance on a forum.

[Greta]

Immanuel, your last post was rich on political style gaming but dragging us further from the point. I note that you have backtracked from previous claims suggesting that atheists were lesser than theists so that will have to do.

That point is that the Ten Commandments are no more grounded than any other ethical system. It is a simplified legal system, as uwot pointed out, not morality as such.

Note that Stalin believed himself to be a god and is thus a theist. All of his atrocites then can be attributed to all the others perpetrated by theists, including the current theist US regime. If church and state were separate in the US you would not have had a theist President claiming that he was told by God to invade Iraq, and for there to be no major outcry over the comment. Rather, the attitude was expected. Normal.

To expect atheism to provide a moral compass is illogical...

Now you've got it! It's an empty vessel...it's a moral eunuch. It's got nothing.

Expecting atheism to provide morals is like expecting your MP3 player to toast your bread. Simply silly. What atheism does is reject the theistic dogmas posing as morality that had kept many millions, even billions, of people intimidated.

A question: do you deny that the global climate change currently in train was caused by human activity?